19 ms·

More like a Cost of dealing with people in the neighborhood who want your stuff and/or want you to bend and bow to them. Look at Taiwan today. What other optio

by op03 6y ago

More like a Cost of dealing with people in the neighborhood who want your stuff and/or want you to bend and bow to them. Look at Taiwan today. What other option do they have other than burning billions to buy some deterrence? Same goes for Japan and Germany. They are highly dependent on outside help if the bullies in the neighborhood get a little more ambitious.

looping__lui 6y ago
Ever heard of NATO?
- fastball 6y ago
  Yes, that is GC's point. NATO wouldn't be much of a deterrent to others without the US pumping massive investment into it / its own war machine.
  - looping__lui 6y ago
    Deterring whom exactly? US paid 22% of NATO’s military and civilian budget [0]. No other developed country spends 3+% on fighter jets, drones etc. It’s just a waste of ressources and does not bring any peace and protection to the world. Russia invades Germany: yeah, I’d rather learn Russian than become the nuclear playground for the US and Russia. The world stage has seen enough examples. Like WHY exactly would Russia or China start a war with anybody? Nukes would end the world as we know it. Don’t need 100, just a handful. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074
    - fastball 6y ago
      Russia is a great example. Russia and China push the envelope whenever they can. The idea is that the US won't just nuke anyone that invades someone else, but they can provide ground/air support (sans nukes). So that's why just having the nukes isn't enough. They're mostly just there so that the US/allies don't get nuked, not good for much else (but very good for that).
      - looping__lui 6y ago
        Ok, what do you mean by “Russia and China push the envelope wherever they can”? Like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and Libya? “We know that over 182,000 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the US, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through November 2018.” [0] [0] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi#:~:text=No%20one%20knows%20with%20certainty%20how%20many%20people,the%20time%20of%20the%20invasion%20through%20November%202018 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/ir....
        fastball 6y ago
        Not sure I understand the relevance. Again, the general idea of both nuclear and non-nuclear brinkmanship is to avoid WWIII or anything close to it. Starting and participating in relatively small wars[1] does not change that calculus. [1] I say small because WWII killed 85,000,000 in 6 years. The goal is to avoid that (or worse), not to avoid all death by war period.
        looping__lui 6y ago
        Listen, personally I would recommend you visit countries abroad for a change - like China, Russia, India or Europe (pick any they are all nice) and leave your US bubble. Nobody * has reason to start random wars abroad and people are not excited spending billions of dollars on weapons to nuke innocent civilians. Just assume that people you don’t know (abroad or not) are guys like you - having no interest in nuking or bombing others or starting wars; but they are generally worried about their families and mortgages. Wars are fabricated by a small group of people in power that gain from buying and selling death. Wars are inherently inefficient and a waste of resources. Edit: * Well, I guess Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Laos, Libya, Syria and many others would disagree....
        fastball 6y ago
        Definitely not a winning strategy to assume things about people you don't know and condescend to them based on your (incorrect) assumptions. I have literally been to all of those countries (probably more than you have), and have lived in Europe for 10 years. I've also lived in Asia. When I say China is pushing the envelope, I'm talking about their actions in Hong Kong, the South China Sea, Taiwan, and more. When I say Russia is pushing the envelope, I'm talking about Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, etc. You're making a bunch of points that I don't disagree with (average people don't want war / war is not economically productive), followed by a single point which undermines the rest of your thesis ("small group of people in power"). It doesn't matter what Average Joe Russia does/wants if the people that actually have power in Russia are doing something else. Ditto for China. Nobody is claiming that all Chinese people are rabid expansionists, just that the people who matter are. Both China and Russia have clearly demonstrated that they want to expand their real power / strengthen it in places where they already have soft power. If the US wasn't around to stick navies in contested waters, wag its finger, flex its muscles, and impose sanctions, most people think the world would not be as peaceful as it is. As you've pointed out, this still isn't as peaceful as it could be, and that's something to be worked on. But that doesn't change the fact that it could also be much, much worse.

by op03 6y ago

looping__lui 6y ago

Ever heard of NATO?

fastball 6y ago
Yes, that is GC's point. NATO wouldn't be much of a deterrent to others without the US pumping massive investment into it / its own war machine.
- looping__lui 6y ago
  Deterring whom exactly? US paid 22% of NATO’s military and civilian budget [0]. No other developed country spends 3+% on fighter jets, drones etc. It’s just a waste of ressources and does not bring any peace and protection to the world. Russia invades Germany: yeah, I’d rather learn Russian than become the nuclear playground for the US and Russia. The world stage has seen enough examples. Like WHY exactly would Russia or China start a war with anybody? Nukes would end the world as we know it. Don’t need 100, just a handful. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074
  - fastball 6y ago
    Russia is a great example. Russia and China push the envelope whenever they can. The idea is that the US won't just nuke anyone that invades someone else, but they can provide ground/air support (sans nukes). So that's why just having the nukes isn't enough. They're mostly just there so that the US/allies don't get nuked, not good for much else (but very good for that).
    - looping__lui 6y ago
      Ok, what do you mean by “Russia and China push the envelope wherever they can”? Like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and Libya? “We know that over 182,000 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the US, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through November 2018.” [0] [0] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi#:~:text=No%20one%20knows%20with%20certainty%20how%20many%20people,the%20time%20of%20the%20invasion%20through%20November%202018 https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/ir....
      - fastball 6y ago
        Not sure I understand the relevance. Again, the general idea of both nuclear and non-nuclear brinkmanship is to avoid WWIII or anything close to it. Starting and participating in relatively small wars[1] does not change that calculus. [1] I say small because WWII killed 85,000,000 in 6 years. The goal is to avoid that (or worse), not to avoid all death by war period.
        looping__lui 6y ago
        Listen, personally I would recommend you visit countries abroad for a change - like China, Russia, India or Europe (pick any they are all nice) and leave your US bubble. Nobody * has reason to start random wars abroad and people are not excited spending billions of dollars on weapons to nuke innocent civilians. Just assume that people you don’t know (abroad or not) are guys like you - having no interest in nuking or bombing others or starting wars; but they are generally worried about their families and mortgages. Wars are fabricated by a small group of people in power that gain from buying and selling death. Wars are inherently inefficient and a waste of resources. Edit: * Well, I guess Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Laos, Libya, Syria and many others would disagree....
        fastball 6y ago
        Definitely not a winning strategy to assume things about people you don't know and condescend to them based on your (incorrect) assumptions. I have literally been to all of those countries (probably more than you have), and have lived in Europe for 10 years. I've also lived in Asia. When I say China is pushing the envelope, I'm talking about their actions in Hong Kong, the South China Sea, Taiwan, and more. When I say Russia is pushing the envelope, I'm talking about Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, etc. You're making a bunch of points that I don't disagree with (average people don't want war / war is not economically productive), followed by a single point which undermines the rest of your thesis ("small group of people in power"). It doesn't matter what Average Joe Russia does/wants if the people that actually have power in Russia are doing something else. Ditto for China. Nobody is claiming that all Chinese people are rabid expansionists, just that the people who matter are. Both China and Russia have clearly demonstrated that they want to expand their real power / strengthen it in places where they already have soft power. If the US wasn't around to stick navies in contested waters, wag its finger, flex its muscles, and impose sanctions, most people think the world would not be as peaceful as it is. As you've pointed out, this still isn't as peaceful as it could be, and that's something to be worked on. But that doesn't change the fact that it could also be much, much worse.